Elliot Rodger

So reading around the web it appears to me that men are starting to stand up for men and being men, and that the feminists are a bit flabbergasted at being talked back to, that their assertions are being challanged.

This is new.


GOOD!

I am oft underestimated. This tends to work in my favor.

It's such a succinct and precise rebuttal to hawkeye's mantra; let's read it again shall we?
Finn said
Bravo for cutting through the crap Finn

I hear you - and I think it's ridiculous for these spoiled kids to buy the horseshit they're being sold and feel justified in their entitlement for jobs.

Do they also send money to the Honorable Mr. Mustafa who only needs a kind American to cash his cheque and he will certainly send the money immediately, since his brother in law is a sultan in distress trying to sell his American properties?

Don't college graduates research job prospects, trends in hiring... I do feel sorry for them - Everyone is lied to about something.

Pity them. Don't justify them. Let them do their homework.

They should KNOW better. Ugh. Conservative in me is peeking out.

If you need money, get a job. NO legal job is beneath ANYONE. What are they saying - they are superior to the decent men and women who work at Burger King? They are superior to the decent men and women who work at Target?

(she's screaming 'bullshit')

Hey.

I asked you this question before, but you've been busy.

Could you give me just three tenets or demands of feminism (don't make them up, bud), that are anti-man or anti-freedom?

"Willingness" is a meaningful term only when it is defined and contained in the consent laws of a particular state. I keep telling you that the sexual assault laws all hinge on consent. And each state's sexual assault laws define what's meant by "consent" as well as those situations where consent is not considered legally present. And people of average intelligence are easily capable of understanding these state laws.


Nothing has suddenly changed. The sexual assault laws always defined situations where consent was not legally present. And that always included various conditions of physical and cognitive incapacitation.

The bottom line is this...

Each state has sexual assault laws that define acts of sexual contact as illegal if engaged in without consent--whether it's a lack of consent indicated by the victim at the time of the act, or whether it's a situation the state has deemed legally non-consensual, doesn't matter. Without consent, the act constitutes a violation of law.

It is the responsibility of every individual to be familiar with the sexual assault laws of their state regarding consent and how "consent" is defined in that particular state. These laws are easily found on the internet.

Every college makes this information available on their Web site, and supplies students with ample information on the sexual assault laws and their interpretation. They also expect students to abide by such laws as part of their code of conduct.

There is no "confused tangle of contradicting information". Sexual assault laws are state laws--we have 50 states--the laws of the state in which the sexual contact occurs are what govern the behavior of the people in that state. Each state has it's own particular wording and definitions in its laws--including the sexual assault laws.

When you drive a car, you are expected to be familiar with the traffic laws, and drunk driving laws of your state. If you violate such laws, you are held accountable. The sexual assault laws are no different.

Sexual assault/rape laws have historically viewed this crime as one in which the perpetrator is generally male, and the victim generally female--that's not "unjust", it's a reflection of statistical reality. In recent decades, the laws have expanded to better protect male victims from unwanted sexual contacts--and, statistically, these unwanted contacts/assaults are more often perpetrated by males on male victims. They now offer better protection to female victims of female perpetrators. Because of that increased inclusiveness, the laws cover virtually all types of sexual assaults that either males or females can commit--including those where the perpetrator is female, and the victim male--and the punishments have become equivalent, regardless of the genders of either the victim or the perpetrator.

There is no "injustice" to men in these laws. Men have better protection, from sexual assault, under current laws than at any time in the past. Sexually assaultive crimes against men are regarded just as seriously, and punished just as harshly, as equivalent crimes where the victim is female.

If you are at all interested in "justice" for men in the sexual assault laws, you should applaud the current laws inclusiveness that better protects them.

The law is not "a lottery"--any more than traffic laws are a a lottery--those too vary from state to state, even city to city, and when you drive, you have to be aware of the traffic laws in the jurisdiction you are in.

The only definition of "consent" that matters is the one given in the sexual assault laws of your state--the state in which the sexual contact occurs. Colleges post the laws for the state the college is located in.

You violate the law only when you violate the consent conditions specified by your state.

This is not about whether "she enjoyed it" or regretted it, it's about whether she/he consented to it at the time of the act--and had the legal capacity to consent--and/or whether she/he indicated non-consent at the time of the act, either verbally or behaviorally, and had the capacity to indicate non-consent.

The laws don't just cover "traditional sex"--I've already made that clear--they cover all types of sexual contacts.
But, in a case of "traditional sex" they would be defining penetrating acts performed by a male on a female, and deeming these illegal when performed without her consent. That's not "unjust"--it's logical, in terms of who is considered the perpetrator, and who is held responsible for violating the law. He's the only one violating the law when he engages in "traditional sex" without consent. She can violate other sexual assault laws if she engages in other acts without his consent.

Sexual assault is a reality. Attempts to minimize it, or deny it, as you are trying to do, by trying to ascribe all sexual assault complaints to "regret" or "whether she enjoyed it" are helpful to no one, and are essentially sexist in their perceptions of women. If you are allegedly so concerned about "justice" in this area, where is your concern to see justice for those women, and men as well, who report that they have been the victims of sexual assault? Tossing them all off as liars, which is actually what you are doing, is hardly an appropriate display of either fairness or justice.

If you want to see people better protected from accusations of sexual assault, urge them to familiarize themselves with the sexual assault laws of their state and the specific definitions of "consent" and non-consent those laws contain. And then urge them to abide by such laws.

That men are genetically abusively violent and that only hundreds of years of women being in charge will change this, that sex is dangerous for women, that men have to be taught to want the right kind of sex and sex for the right reasons. That sex needs to be rigorous controlled by the state to keep women safe, victims never have anything to do with their victimization, that women should be encouraged to not communicate what they want, women should be encouraged to be cock-teases....


I could do this all day, is that enough for you?

You keep worrying about men being "feminized".

So...

What's your definition of "masculinity"? What's a "real man" like in your view?

What conceptions about "masculinity" would you like young men to have? What notions about "masculinity" would you see as harmful to young men?

Who is a good role model for masculinity in your view--can you name particular individual(s)?

poppycock.

Every single person alive understand what willing is - something you do of your own free will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If 2 people do exactly the same thing, with exactly the same state of intoxication - is one a criminal for the act while the other is not?

The answer, as it currently stands is 'yes'. And you are all for such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And you still can't bring yourself to answer a simple question on fairness...without reverting to the definition of law...whose fairness is question.

It's not a hard question. The principle never changes...all people should be held to the same standard, regardless of gender (which you insist on bringing into the question, as it is the only way you can deal with the question...but the answer doesnt need gender identification to answer it)

Quite frankly...the only reason you avoid answering the question is so that you can continue lying to yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If Carmen says 'Mike you are a criminal by dint of speaking while being a man' (which would be a blatantly unfair law)...how does Mike argue that law is unfair (the sexes are held to different standards) if Carmen just keeps referring back to 'the definition of the law is...you are speaking while a man...so you are a criminal'....then there is no way you can rationally argue 'fairness'.

Fairness is a principle that is entirely separate to law (as a law can be unfair - lacking in justice), and it (fairness) can be argued on it's own merits without reference to law.

In other words, your answers are utter nonsense, unable to stand on their own merit without referring back to the law whose fairness is called into question.

--------------------------------------------------------

Either you don't know your history, or you are being wilfully blind.

I was wondering when you'd bring this up. So, if a guy and girl meet in a bar, end up in the same state of intoxication, and she:

A - chases him around the nightclub
B - takes him home to her place
C - lays him flat on his back, jumps on top of him and has intercourse with him

(or keeping A & B the same)

D - gives him oral sex (which will still trigger most rape laws, as it involves penetration)

According to this law you support...if the next day she has regrets, she can make a rape complaint, and he is a rapist.

----------------------------------
There is no logic, or fairness in that - it would be a travesty of justice.

----------------------------------
This conundrum couldn't exist if the law held both genders to the same standard

Or from yet another angle (showing the ridiculousness of this law - and so discussing the law)...of two people who engage in willing intercourse while drunk...only the male can be a criminal & rapist...

...it doesn't matter that he was too intoxicated to 'consent' to her having sex with him...while it does matter that she was too intoxicate to 'consent' (you see the double standard here?).... because the definition further includes penetration...

...which the male has a sex organ for, which he uses during intercourse...while the female doesn't have a sex organ that penetrates during intercourse.

So in drunken intercourse...the only gender capable of being a criminal / rapist (according to law)...is the male.

This is a travesty in justice....which you support.

You say rape laws aren't gender specific...and yet in this specific instance (willing drunken sexual intercourse), only the male can be (defined in existing laws) a rapist.

Asserting "people who disagree with me are stupid" does indeed meet the definitions of succinctness and precision.

Everyone who disagrees with me is a poopyhead.

Or I I am one of the very few who has a grasp on the major problem, and I am doing my best to be calm as I wait for the rest of you to catch up to me. A few years back I was getting called an abuser for aguing that victim culture and rhe feminists have gone to far, told that I was to radical to be allowed to speak. Not only does that not happen now, but there are even people who largely agree with me....publicly.

We're not worthy!

We're not worthy!

hawkeye as martyr

Well I don't...publicly.
Here, I'll fix finn's statement so it doesn't rub oralloy the wrong way.

You obviously explained why the laws are unjust in a lot more detail then I, but the above point was one the main points I was making that I got called "ridiculous" for.

Another thing to note as far as rape laws go; not knowing the age of a female can not be used as a defense for a statutory rape case in many states. Even if the female lies, or has a fake ID, or is in a club that requires all patrons to be at least 21, the male is STILL guilty of a rape.

For example; if a 21 year old male had consensual sex with a woman who lied to get into a club or bar he could face YEARS in prison. At his trial he couldn't use his ignorance of her exact age as a defense. Is that fair to men?

I honestly think the way rape laws exist when mixed with the attitudes held by a lot of women in society these days, results in an entrapment culture for males.

If that was all you said...then it would look ridiculous to other people - hence you have to explain the workings of each stage from start to finish to show why it is that way - otherwise they fall back on the belief/paradigm that lawmakers only make fair & just laws, therefore your proposition must be ridiculous.

Of course, to explain it in a way that doesn't look ridiculous, you do have to understand how the detail works, and understand the principle of fairness as applies to justice and the law.

It doesn't help if you are easily distracted by diversionary tactics. As people hold certain concepts dear, and have emotional attachments to them - if something doesn't gel with their favoured concept, they either ignore it, or create a diversion so they can ignore it, or plain straight out lie to themselves about it.

This can be seen in firefly's inability/unwillingness to answer a simple question on fairness...without reverting to a favoured law (the exact same law whose fairness is called into question)

It the same foundational paradigm as the first paragraph 'the law is always fair (foundational paradigm), so I can use the law to prove the law is fair' (in the first paragraphs case - so your proposition must be ridiculous)....

...which breaks down entirely when the law is blatantly unjust 'eg. it's against the law to speak while being a man' (from my Mike & Carmen example)...but even though this is obvious...when a concept has emotion & meaning attached to it...you find other ways to justify the use of 'the law is always fair, so I can use the law to argue the fairness of the law...as firefly has done.

The justice principle of fairness needs no such convoluted thinking to uphold itself, or utilise.

That wasn't ALL I said, but firefly poo pooed that point specifically when I brought it up.

I said:

"If the definition that a "rape" has occurred is simply an unwanted penetration, then how could that possibly be a fair law to both genders? Unless a lot of women enjoy fisting men in the asshole against their will..."

...my attempt at interjecting some humor and levity into this super serious thread.

I also said this:

"The law is slanted to do more to protect women. F A C T. Men have one fewer orifice than women do. It's simple mathematics then that men are more likely to be guilty of "penetration" than woman are, especially when that one extra orifice for penetration is the MAIN avenue for most sex in human society."



You also touched on and elaborated on this point that I brought up:

"The fact is that OFTEN what happens is that two equally drunk people have consensual sex. The next day if the woman decides she regrets it; she KNOWS that all she has to do is say that it was rape. Then any negativity is immediately deflected from her to the male. She avoids looking like a tramp. What happens to the male at this point in terms of damaging effects is irrelevant in both her eyes and the eyes of society."

I liked your examples and arguments

The penetration issue in rape is not a bad issue in the crime of rape (though I think it should only relate to intercourse...and call other forms of penetration other things...as used to be the case).

However, if you are going to be facetious with your examples (or even just have the appearance of being facetious) on such a serious matter...people are doing to give a facetious, or even serious response - which won't be positive.

The issue that creates 'rapists' out of the man (but not the woman) when both the man & woman are willing and drunk while engaged in intercourse, is the definition of consent...the following reason why it can only be the man, is the 'fact of penetration'. But without the consent issue - the second would not be an issue.

P.S. Please excuse the post editing...accuracy with English in written form, I find a pain in the backside.